Hollins v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hollins v. State

97 So. 3d 932, 2012 WL 3825365, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 14841

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 5, 2012

DocketNo. 4D11-3401

StatusPublished

This text of 97 So. 3d 932 (Hollins v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hollins v. State, 97 So. 3d 932, 2012 WL 3825365, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 14841 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Wilbert E. Hollins (Defendant) appeals an order summarily denying his rule 3.850 motion, claiming newly discovered evidence in the form of a proposed witness who was willing to testify that the victim told him that she had lied at his trial and Defendant did not commit the offenses for which he was convicted, but that another individual actually shot her. We affirm, but not for the same reasons provided by the trial court.

While the trial court suggested that the motion might be untimely, it did not actually make a finding of untimeliness. However, the record indicated that in a prior rule 3.850 motion under oath, filed in a different lower tribunal case involving the same victim, which Defendant filed in July 2008, he stated he had learned of the information “a few months ago as of this writing.” Construing “a few” to mean three or more, but more than two, Defendant had to have learned of the information not later than some time in April 2008. The instant motion, turned over to prison authorities for mailing in May 2010, therefore was untimely. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(b)(1). We affirm for that reason.

Affirmed.

MAY, C.J., STEVENSON and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Wilbert E. Hollins (Defendant) appeals an order summarily denying his rule 3.850 motion, claiming newly discovered evidence in the form of a proposed witness who was willing to testify that the victim told him that she had lied at his trial and Defendant did not commit the offenses for which he was convicted, but that another individual actually shot her. We affirm, but not for the same reasons provided by the trial court.

While the trial court suggested that the motion might be untimely, it did not actually make a finding of untimeliness. However, the record indicated that in a prior rule 3.850 motion under oath, filed in a different lower tribunal case involving the same victim, which Defendant filed in July 2008, he stated he had learned of the information “a few months ago as of this writing.” Construing “a few” to mean three or more, but more than two, Defendant had to have learned of the information not later than some time in April 2008. The instant motion, turned over to prison authorities for mailing in May 2010, therefore was untimely. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(b)(1). We affirm for that reason.

Affirmed.

MAY, C.J., STEVENSON and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

97 So. 3d 932, 2012 WL 3825365, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 14841, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hollins-v-state-fladistctapp-2012.